TEXT: I Corinthians 3:1-7

SUBJECT: Sectarianism

This is one of the saddest passages in all of the Bible. Sad, because of what it says of a church in the First Century; sadder, because of what it says of many churches in the Twentieth Century. The condition it describes is sad, but not hopeless. There is still time for repentance. May God give it to His people--starting with us.

The chapter opens on a note of regret: "And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people, but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. I fed you with milk and not solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able".

Paul is a man of immense learning and desire to teach. His goal is not self-promotion, but the welfare of his people. He did not "seek what they had--but them"; he thought of himself as a loving father, willing to impoverish himself to provide for his children. He had so much to say; they needed it so badly. But he couldn't do anything for them. They had not been able to "receive" his teaching in the past; they still couldn't. Why not?

Because they were "not spiritual people, but carnal--even babes in Christ". What do these terms mean? Taken separately, they contain an impossible contradiction. They are "not spiritual"--i.e., not indwelt by the Holy Spirit, yet still "in Christ". Is this what Paul means? No. Elsewhere, he has written, "...Now if any man does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.". In short, this does not teach "the carnal Christian doctrine" we so often encounter.

What does it teach? The words have to be taken--as they were given--together. Along with the rest of the Epistle. What they mean is this: these men are Christians--but at one point, they're not acting like it. They are behaving "not spiritually--as though they were not possessed of God's Spirit; they are thinking "carnally"--in a fleshly way; they are "babes in Christ"--juvenile. In short, as v.3b puts it: They are "behaving like mere men". On this point, Paul can't tell the difference between the Christians in Corinth and the pagans of that city. Their attitudes and conduct are identical.

How did Paul know this? Someone had tattled. Some members of "Chloe's household" had seen Paul, and told him the bad news. What was it? There was "envy, strife, and divisions" within the church. The key word is "envy"--or rivalry. The Christians were not looking at each other as brethren, but as competitors. This selfishness was producing "strife"--or quarrelling and "divisions". The Church that Christ died to "knit together" was being unraveled by rotten attitudes.

How did Paul know the attitudes were so bad? Some "quarreling" in the Church may be necessary. At times, we must "contend for the faith"; "separate from those who walk disorderly". These are hard to carry out without some discord.

But Paul knows that the strife at Corinth is of a sinful variety. Their own mouths condemn them. What are they saying? Some are saying, "I am of Paul" and others are replying, "I am of Apollos". A third party is unmentioned here: "I am of Peter". Thus, the divisions at Corinth were caused by following men.

What's wrong with preferring Paul to Apollos or Peter to Paul? Nothing. I like some preachers better than others. So do you. But the Corinthians were doing much more than that. They were saying--in effect--"I am of Paul and against Apollos". They were hero-worshipping the one and despising the other. This is what tore the church apart--a sectarian spirit.

The Corinthians were mostly educated people; none of them would plead guilty to the charge of sectarianism. Each of them had "reasons" for their choice. What were they?

Negatively, they were not based on the Gospel. Peter, Paul, and Apollos preached the same Gospel. Paul cursed anyone who preached "another Gospel which is not another". Had Peter or Apollos done so, Paul would have been the first to condemn him.

Therefore, the differences between these men must have been of a secondary nature. Paul and Apollos differed greatly in pulpit gifts. One was "an eloquent man"; the other did not "come with excellence of speech". Paul and Peter may have differed somewhat on "Jewish issues"--which were very important at the time and threatened church unity at Antioch, Galatia, Rome, and Corinth. What is the relationship between the Testaments? The Jews stressed continuity; Paul emphasized discontinuity. The argument had important overtones--both doctrinal and practical. But it was not central to the Christian message. Hence, both sides must live in brotherly love.

Therefore, whenever Christians rally to men or polarize around secondary issues, they are "not spiritual, but carnal, babes in Christ...and behaving like mere men".

Paul assumes that we know this. In v.4, he doesn't slam it home: "You are carnal", but leaves us with a question: "For when one says, `I am of Paul', and another `I am of Apollos', are you not carnal?" Of course we are. Our consciences--in time--bear witness of it.

Paul has diagnosed the illness in vv.1-4. In vv.5-8, he gives the cure. "Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one?"

Do you understand what he's saying? It's brilliant! It's not "I am better than Apollos--so follow me". And it's not "We're both good men, but differences will occur. To accommodate them, let's say, `My disciples should meet here, Apollos' somewhere else'". He rules out both possibilities.

What he's saying is this: "Paul is nothing; Apollos is nothing--the Lord is everything. And so, why follow anyone but Christ?"

And so, it's foolish to "follow men" because "men are nothing". Christ is everything, so follow Him alone. To quote the Savior: "Do not be called Rabbi, for one is Your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren". These words were directed--not just to believers at large--but to "His disciples", too--the very men who would be teachers in the Church.

Once we get this into our heads--"Men are nothing", we'll see much improvement in our lives.

We preachers will be a bit humbled, perhaps. I may know ten times more than another pastor. But what's ten times nothing? Nothing. Or, he may know ten times more than I do. But where does envy come in when I remember than ten times my nothing is still nothing? This will produce the brotherly feelings we so need among the leaders of God's people.

Other believers will be helped, too. They will be "open" to other teachers--and may profit from them. But they won't be "enslaved" to any--and so won't be led astray by their errors. But most of all, so long as the Lord's people rally around no one but Christ, we'll have what the Apostles' Creed says we accept: "The Communion of the Saints".

God give us the grace to worship no one but Christ and to love and esteem all of His people. Amen.